|
|
Saturday, January 17, 2009
|
|
| |
From the Cañon City Daily Record (Debbie Bell): "A simple agreement between Black Range Minerals and Uranium One may form the basis of a powerful joint venture to mine a combined 80 million pounds of uranium ore from the Tallahassee area. BRM, the Australian company currently drilling exploratory holes in the controversial Taylor Ranch Project, said it has entered into a letter of intent with Uranium One Inc. to jointly pursue the development with the adjoining Hansen Project. Uranium One is a uranium mining and exploration company based in Canada with holdings in South Africa and Australia."
From the Cañon City Daily Record (Debbie Bell): "TAC President Jim Hawklee said Tuesday the group relies on the county's land use decisions to protect residents but is uncertain that protection is infallible. Water rights remain front and center in TAC's opposition to the project.
"'A full-scale mining operation will de-water the entire region,' Hawklee said. 'The loss of water to the Tallahassee Creek system is unacceptable, and would harm the State of Colorado's in-stream flow rights along with numerous other water-rights holders.'"
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"cc"
9:16:54 AM 
|
|
From the Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel): "Mancos water officials finally won approval from the U.S. Senate on Thursday to repair the canal from Jackson Gulch Reservoir."
[More...]
However, the Congressional struggle is far from over for Gary Kennedy, superintendent of the Mancos Water Conservancy District. "This is a big hurdle out of the way. It still has to go through the House," Kennedy said.
The bill authorizes $8.25 million for repairs. But Congress needs to take a separate vote to actually appropriate the money. Kennedy and three board members will go to Washington next month to start making the case for the appropriation.
The canal provides municipal water for Mancos and Mesa Verde National Park and irrigation water for area farmers. In past years, the Department of the Interior has resisted spending money on the canal, Kennedy said. He hopes that Salazar's pending appointment to head the Interior department will help Mancos get the money.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
9:00:12 AM
|
|
From the Wet Mountain Tribune: "Some 50 Valley residents gathered in the community room at Cliff Lanes bowling center last Thursday to address their concerns regarding Round Mountain Water and Sanitation District's proposed lease of 20 acre feet of water to the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District...Following the public hearing, the RMW board unanimously signed an amended letter of agreement with the UAWCD. That amended letter states RMW will continue to negotiate the lease of 20-acre feet of Johnson Ranch water to the UAWCD. The letter is now in the hands of the UAWCD for its approval."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
8:19:47 AM
|
|
Here's an update about snowpack, from the Leadville Herald. From the article:
According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, the state's snowpack is 120 percent of average. With the 2009 totals topping last year's Jan. 1 readings, the current snowpack is the highest since 1997. Additionally, this year's snowpack marks only the third time that above-average January totals were measured across the state in the 12 years since 1997, according to Allen Green, State Conservationist with the NRCS...
As the new year begins, reservoir storage is in good condition statewide. With no basins showing any potential shortages, the statewide totals are at 98 percent of average and are 101 percent of last year's storage volumes.
"colorado water"
8:13:54 AM
|
|
Here's an update on the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project, from Steve Porter writing for the Northern Colorado Business Report. From the article:
If the $426 million Northern Integrated Supply Project - which already has $5 million and more than five years of work invested in it - is shot down by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, it would have devastating consequences for Northern Colorado agriculture, farm proponents say. "Without NISP, I think you'll see thousands of acres (of farmland) going out of production and failing cities without that water," said Crystal Korrey, state affairs director for the Colorado Farm Bureau...
Brian Werner, the district's spokesman, said NISP has gained strong support in the agriculture community and farmers and ranchers are counting on it coming to fruition. "Basically, all of the ag organizations in the state are in support of it, so that says something right there," he said, noting that a minimum of 40,000 acres - between 80 and 100 square miles of farmland - could be lost in the region over the next 20 years without NISP...
Area farms are already selling off water rights to developers and cities and towns thirsty for new water supplies to accommodate growing populations. The city of Thornton, for example, has reportedly purchased more than 100 Northern Colorado farms over the last 15 years. Without large storage and supply reservoirs like the proposed 170,000-acre-foot Glade and 40,000-acre-foot Galeton to provide irrigation in times of drought, the pace of struggling farms selling off their water rights will likely accelerate. Robert Winter, a farmer in the Windsor area, said he's sold farmland and water rights to local municipalities to keep his ag operation going. "The municipalities have to have water and they're going to go out and buy it," he said. "Everybody's looking for a way to survive and keep farming." Winter, a lifelong Northern Colorado resident and a member of the Weld County Farm Bureau, said he hopes the NISP proposal can overcome its critics and criticisms to provide the water that agriculture needs to continue to be viable in the northern Front Range. "In a drought you just can't get (any water)," he said. "We need those reservoirs, because storage is the only thing that's going to help us."[...]
A broad coalition of ag organizations have gone on record in support of NISP, including Colorado Farm Bureau, the Colorado Livestock Association, Colorado Pork Producers Council, Colorado Dairy Farmers, Colorado Egg Producers and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. Mark Sponsler, director of the Greeley-based Colorado Corn Growers Association, said his organization also strongly supports NISP. Sponsler said Colorado farmers have long supported water supply projects because those projects have resulted in agriculture contributing an estimated $17 billion annually to the state's economy...
Water district spokesman Werner said the days of relatively cheap Colorado-Big Thompson water are nearly gone, with no more than a seven-year supply left. "If C-BT water isn't available, what's the next option?" he asks. "You continue to buy up farms. We don't want that to be the only option."
The editorial staff of the Northern Colorado Business Report opposes NISP. From the editorial:
The flaws that the EPA analysis found in the draft EIS are so numerous, and so intricately detailed, that we doubt they can be fixed. There can be no worse economic damage that could be done to this region than to allow environmental quality, especially the health of our rivers, to be degraded.
What Northern Colorado needs most now is a renewed effort to address the region's water-supply problems that will only worsen with the passage of time. The crux of the issue is how growing cities, with populations rising at a rate of about 1.5 percent annually, can coexist with an agricultural economy that consumes 90 percent of the region's water.
NISP is a mistake we can't afford to make. Let's begin work on alternatives.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
7:55:49 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of this week's meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
A funding request for a plan to study water availability in the Upper Arkansas River watershed squeaked through the Arkansas Basin Roundtable this week, as several members wanted to see conditions placed on the proposal. "What we are trying to determine is how much water there is available that could be sustained," said Terry Scanga, general manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. "This will aid in land-use planning." The Upper Ark district wants $180,000 of state money, through the Water Supply Reserve Account, to assist in a $407,000 study of the area's "water balance."
The study would identify groundwater recharge rates in Chaffee, Lake, Custer and Fremont counties, providing data needed for county land-use decisions and augmentation plans. It could also begin to identify where water could be stored underground. The study would dovetail with the proposed decision support system by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. But the roundtable was concerned about the timing of the request, the source of funds and the value of the data in fulfilling the goal of reducing the statewide water supply gap in years to come...
Funding from the U.S. Geological Survey, about one-third of the total, would be jeopardized if action is not taken by the CWCB in March, said Pat Edelmann, of the Pueblo USGS office. Edelmann said funds dedicated to the project could be used elsewhere within the USGS...
The CWCB has the final say on roundtable requests and funds are broken out in basin accounts. Since 2005, the Arkansas basin has received $3.7 million in total funding, but is reaching the limits in the account dedicated solely to the basin. Roundtable members put a condition on the proposal to require the funds come from the statewide fund and only after projects previously approved by the roundtable are approved. "There's no guarantee to fully fund this project," added Reed Dils, the basin's representative on the CWCB. "There's a good chance it will be only partially funded." Scanga said full funding is needed for the project, although Tom Young, an Upper Ark board member, noted the project will take three years to complete, so a reasonable guarantee of funding is needed over time.
"colorado water"
7:17:40 AM
|
|
Here's an update about the sale of shares of the Bessemer Ditch to the Pueblo Board of Water Works, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The chief of the Pueblo water board and president of the Bessemer Ditch say shareholders who decide to sell and those who don't will be treated fairly and pledged to be open as a sale progresses. "The sale continues to move forward," said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo water board. "This would be a valuable asset to the Board of Water Works and the people of Pueblo County."
The water board is considering buying about 7,000 shares of the Bessemer Ditch at $10,150 per share, Hamel said. To fund the purchase, the water board will try to sell the Columbine Ditch for $32 million, enter into new contracts for long-term leases of water and issue about $40 million in bonds. The board also has about $12 million in a water development fund. Early next week, the water board intends to send a letter to all shareholders on the ditch explaining the details of the sale. In early March, a special meeting of shareholders will be called to discuss the sale and changes in bylaws that would be needed in order for the water to be used outside the Bessemer Ditch. The water board has used an agent to line up shares for purchase - rather than the more direct approach it used in a failed attempt to purchase a majority of shares last year - in order to target those who wanted to sell, Hamel said. The decision to use that approach was made after the water board learned El Paso County water interests were offering contracts...
Hamel said no one will be forced to sell, and the water board will allow farmers who sell to continue farming with the water for up to 20 years, depending on individual cases. The board is also committed to making improvements on the ditch to help those who continue farming and properly revegetating land, Hamel said. "We're committed to doing what we say. That's why we're sending a letter to the shareholders at this time," Hamel said. "Some want to sell, but want to farm for another 5, 10 or 15 years. We need the water 20 years out or more."
More details about the potential sale of shares from the Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
[Leonard DiTomaso] also is concerned about water leaving the Bessemer Ditch, and possibly the basin, as a result of sales of shares. There are conservation easements on the Bessemer Ditch that tie some of the water to the land, but there may not be enough "push" on some laterals to deliver water to those who choose not to sell...
DiTomaso recognizes that some farmers no longer use the water and may be looking to sell. The price apparently being offered on the Bessemer Ditch is lower than what water is selling for in other parts of the state, however. For example, the Pueblo water board wants to sell the Columbine Ditch for almost $25,000 per acre-foot, based on its expected yield of about 1,300 acre-feet annually and price tag of $32 million...
About 2,000 shares of the Bessemer Ditch already are being converted to domestic use by the St. Charles Mesa Water District, said manager David Simpson. The district has no plans to raise its rates to compete with the current water board offer, because it usually acquires water by accepting Bessemer shares as land is subdivided. The district's offer for water outside its service area is $3,000 per share. After the water board's 2007 offer, however, five shares of Bessemer Ditch water were sold for $6,500, about $2,000 more than the previous high sale on the ditch...
The district also is concerned about the potential of shares on the ditch being sold to Pueblo. "What bothers us is the issue of the water going out of the ditch someday," Simpson said. That's what is at the heart of DiTomaso's drive to get on the Bessemer board. The ditch, running from the Pueblo Dam to the Huerfano River 30 miles east, was begun in 1888. It was rebuilt after the 1921 flood. DiTomaso is afraid that water sales could leave it high and dry, as was the case with the Colorado Canal in Crowley County and the Booth Orchard Ditch, which was purchased by the Pueblo water board in 1970. "They gave their water away and got very little in return. They are sorry now," DiTomaso said. "The Bessemer Ditch is a marvel. It's worth protecting."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"colorado water"
6:52:27 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of this week's meeting of the San Luis Valley Irrigation District boad, from Ruth Heide writing for the Valley Courier. From the article:
The San Luis Valley Irrigation District board this week voted unanimously to sponsor an effort that will give area water officials one more tool to more accurately predict snow runoff and curtailments to water users based on those predictions. Irrigation District Superintendent Travis Smith explained to the board that satellite imagery modeling efforts to help with forecasting began in this area last year. He said this year he received a commitment from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for about $80,000 in additional funds to assist with this snow forecasting model. The CWCB is contracting with Riverside Technology to perform the work. Riverside Technology has performed similar work on the Colorado River system for four or five years, Smith said, so the company has a proven track record...
Smith, who serves on the CWCB, said he has told the state board for years that the Rio Grande Basin needs help with forecasting, so the CWCB was willing to put up the $82,000 for this effort. A local cost share will be required, however, Smith explained. (He said last year CWCB funded the entire amount of $25,000 but wants to see a local commitment this year.) Smith said he will be asking the Rio Grande Water Conservation District Board next Tuesday for the $24,000 local cost share. The total amount of the contract will be $106,000. Smith said the Rio Grande Water Conservation District represents the Conejos and Rio Grande river systems, and this modeling effort will assist the entire basin, not just the Rio Grande. It will also help the Conejos with forecasting. "That's the effort, to try to get more tools to help with river administration for the Compact, hopefully get our curtailment flattened out and not deal with under estimation or over estimation," Smith said.
He told the board that although he will be asking the Rio Grande district for the cost share, that district cannot receive the CWCB funds because the district is subject to TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) restrictions, so he asked his board, the SLV Irrigation District, to serve as the contracting entity to receive the CWCB grant money and administer it to the contractor. The irrigation district is not restricted by TABOR. The district would have a work order with CWCB to receive the money and would serve as the contracting entity with Riverside Technology that will actually perform the work, Smith explained.
He said Riverside will take the random satellite information and develop a model run from that information using regression analysis and some ground truthing. Smith said he expected this type of work to be ongoing over a period of years with the project gaining more and more credibility as it accumulates data over multiple years.
"colorado water"
6:40:11 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2009
John Orr.
Last update:
3/15/09; 3:45:57 PM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
|
